-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
United States v. Miller ----
- Thread starter Hasselhoss
- Start date
My guess is that the percentage would be greatly related to the climate at the time of the ruling. I wonder how few troops have suppressors?
I have never seen a military issued suppressor. EVER.
U no seal team 6 delta force ranger?
Ive seen one Special Forces guy, and he scared the **** outta me. Other than that, Rangers aren't the quiet type. they just specialize in infantry operations.
I wonder, based on the arguments, if the court would hold a strict adherence to the exact make/model of firearm as used in a current military environment. It also begs the question of whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a gun that has been discontinued from use in the Armed Forces.
Two things. The infantry don't carry 10" shotguns. We carry the pistol grip 18" mossberg 500's. and hardly ever at that. Not much breaching in Afghanistan.
And regular units have suppressors too. Just usually in the scout platoons, if they have the funds available. I've seen them in the 101st and 10th mountain. The 82d didn't be ause we spend all our money on airborne operations.
Not trying to sharpshoot you, just figured I would put it out there
I doubt it, it would seem to be an arbitrary limitation, but again the 9 decide what they want
True, but given the letter of the decision and the case as argued by the US Attorney that ".The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."
I don't mean this to sound judgmental or like an ass- ok? I really don't.
So saying that, reading this thread, it strikes me how much the replies sound like the sentences of subjects and not free men.
do you have the right to breathe? Yes? Did the Supreme court tell you that you could? Is there an article in the Bill of Rights that says so? Of course not. It's inherent. you didn't have to be told to breathe, any more than you have to be told you're free. you were made to be free.
and that being said, what does it matter how the supreme court rules when it's out of natural law? The 2nd says "shall not be infringed." That's a strong statement. There is NOTHING left to interpretation. Notice that the 2nd doesn't mention sporting arms. You know why? Because it's such an inherent right that it was beyond the scope of the Bill of Rights, like breathing. The point of the 2nd is clearly to defned against tyranny to keep this nation free. What arms are needed to achieve that is determined by what arms seek to usurp that freedom.
You do know that Switzerland canons have crew served weapons that the civilians are trained to use, right?
Minguns and grenade launchers? sure. what's the issue there? With great freedom comes great responsibility. Ever shoot tannerite? Tell me that a 5 pound tannerite "target" is different that the 40mm grenade. It's not.
I've been to ranges where miniguns were shot. It's still about shot placement.
Neither we, nor the USSC has the right to infringe upon anothers right to bear arms.
If you can afford a battleship, good for you. It's your responsibility to utilize it in a manner that doesn't harm anothers person or property.
does freedom and liberty have a boundary beyond morals?
So saying that, reading this thread, it strikes me how much the replies sound like the sentences of subjects and not free men.
do you have the right to breathe? Yes? Did the Supreme court tell you that you could? Is there an article in the Bill of Rights that says so? Of course not. It's inherent. you didn't have to be told to breathe, any more than you have to be told you're free. you were made to be free.
and that being said, what does it matter how the supreme court rules when it's out of natural law? The 2nd says "shall not be infringed." That's a strong statement. There is NOTHING left to interpretation. Notice that the 2nd doesn't mention sporting arms. You know why? Because it's such an inherent right that it was beyond the scope of the Bill of Rights, like breathing. The point of the 2nd is clearly to defned against tyranny to keep this nation free. What arms are needed to achieve that is determined by what arms seek to usurp that freedom.
You do know that Switzerland canons have crew served weapons that the civilians are trained to use, right?
Minguns and grenade launchers? sure. what's the issue there? With great freedom comes great responsibility. Ever shoot tannerite? Tell me that a 5 pound tannerite "target" is different that the 40mm grenade. It's not.
I've been to ranges where miniguns were shot. It's still about shot placement.
Neither we, nor the USSC has the right to infringe upon anothers right to bear arms.
If you can afford a battleship, good for you. It's your responsibility to utilize it in a manner that doesn't harm anothers person or property.
does freedom and liberty have a boundary beyond morals?
